Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yeah so how does your interpretation make sense?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the Word (John1:1)?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
On John 1:1c “the Word was God” – What it truly means?
Is Jesus Christ called God
in John 1:1?
An in-depth discussion of the third clause of John 1:1
“The Word was God”
THE proponents of the Christ-is-God theology so confidently affirm that the verse John 1:1 (specially the third clause) expressly supports their belief that one is led to think that this verse explicitly calls Jesus Christ “God.” However, the first verse of The Gospel According to John states:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1).
The Greek text of John 1:1 states:
’ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.
In this and in other Greek versions of the Bible, we do not find the name “Jesus Christ” in the first verse of the Fourth Gospel. Also, none of the Bible’s English translation, strictly so called, could be shown to contain the name of Jesus Christ in that verse.
[Note: The Living Bible renders this verse: “Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.” But strictly speaking, the Living Bible is a paraphrase. However, its publishers were honest enough to explain in the footnote that the name “Christ” which they insinuated into the verse, is “literally” the equivalent of the term “the Word.” (The Living Bible, special edition, Great Britain: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971)]
Thus, the Greek text, the Greek versions of the Bible, and the English translations of the Bible, strictly so called, do not contain the name of Jesus Christ in the first verse of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel According to John.
However, the proponents of the belief in the deity of Christ still so confidently believe that this verse (specially the third clause which says “the Word was God”) expressly supports their belief. Hence, let us examine the interpretations and text itself of the third clause of John 1:1 to determine whether or not they are justified in asserting that Jesus Christ is called God in this verse.
WE MUST EMPLOY LOGICAL ANALYSIS “TO DETERMINED
WHAT PROMPTED JOHN’S FAIRLY UNUSUAL SYNTAX”
The English translation “and the Word was God” comes from the Greek “kai theos en o logos.” Professor Millard J. Erickson, author of many boks in Christian theology, says that we must employ logical analysis “to determined what prompted John’s fairly unusual syntax” (Erickson, p. 460).
Note that in the Greek text, the term “theos” (God) comes before the subject of the clause, “o logos” (the Word): καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos en o logos/and the Word was God). The key to learn what John might mean is to determine how John used the simple copula (the verb “ἦν”) in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word WAS God) – to determine the copular relationship of “theos” (God) and “o logos” (the Word).
Erickson cites at least three possible meanings of the verb “ἦν” (“was”) in New Testament Greek in which John wrote to determine what John might mean by the third clause of John 1:1:
“In an Indo-European language like New Testament Greek, there are at least three usages of the simple copula. One is the ‘is’ of conclusion, where the subject is said to be a member of a class. One is the ‘is’ of of predication or of attribution, where a particular quality is predicated of the subject by use of an adjective. The final use is the ‘is’ of identity, where the subject is equivalent with the predicate. This is, in the terminology of logic, a double A-type proposition where ‘All X is Y’ and ‘All Y is X.’ Such propositions are invertible: in other words, there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” (Erickson, p. 460)
WHY JOHN WOULD NEVER MEANT IN HIS WRITING
THAT “THE WORD IS GOD HIMSELF” WHEN HE SAID
“THE WORD WAS GOD”
Interestingly, “‘is’ of conclusion” and “‘is’ of identity” are how the proponents of Christ-is-God theoogy interpret the clause “the Word was God” to prove their belief that Jesus Christ is God. For instance, Bruce A. Demarest, in his book says that in this verse:
“John stresses the Logos’ eternal identity with God: ‘and the Word was God’. John wants us to know that the Word was not merely God’s eternal companion; He was in truth God Himself.” (Demarest, p. 25)
Demarest interprets the clause on the basis of his understanding that the copular relationship between the “logos” (Word) and “theos” (God) is that of identification. He interpret the verb “en” (was) as “’is’ of identification.” This is also how many people interpret the clause “the Word was God” which led them to believe that this clause proves that Jesus Christ is “God Himself.”
However, the interpretation that identifies the Word with God is indeed very difficult to defend, because the preceding clause states that ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“the Word was with God”). If it is true that the Word is God Himself (as their interpretation of the clause “the Word was God”), then there must be two Gods, because John 1:1 also said that “the Word was with God” – one “God” (the Word) who is with another God (the God who the Word was with). This is unacceptable with monotheistic people to whom John was writing. John would never contradict what he wrote in John 17:3:
“And this is the real and eternal life: THAT THEY KNOW YOU, THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (John 17:3 The Message, emphasis ours)
Thus, John would never meant in his writing that “the Word is God Himself” when he said “the Word was God” because he will not contradict himself by saying in one part of his writing that “the Word is God Himself” and writing in another that “the Word was with God.” Also, John would never contradict what he wrote that the Father of Jesus Christ is the one and only true God.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
God's word is truth. God is truth. Jesus brings God's word. Jesus is truth.
God's word is life. God is life. Jesus brings God's life. Jesus is life.
God's word is light. God is light. Jesus brings God's light. Jesus is light.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
WHY THE CLAUSE “THE WORD WAS GOD” WOULD NEVER
REFERS TO THE “DIVINE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRINITY”
To avoid the difficulty of the “simple copula of identification,” other proponents of Christ-is-God theology assert that “there is a Divine relationship between the ‘Word’ and ‘God’ without absolute identification.” Says James M. Pratt in his booklet The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth:
“The ‘Word’ (Gk. logos)’was God’. John both ifentifies the Word as God as well as distinguishes Him from God. In other words, there is a Divine relationship between the ‘Word’ and ‘God’ without absolute identification. That is, while the Word is Deity. He is not the Father. For John, God is a larger entity than God the Father.” (Pratt, pp. 48-49)
Pratt’s interpretation of “was” in the clause “the Word was God” conforms to “simple copula of conclusion” rather than “simple copula of identification.” For him, the Word was God in the sense that the Word is a member of a class of being known as God. Neither the Word alone God nor is the Father alone God. He said, “God is a larger entity than God the Father.” Pratt’s interpretation can be summarized in the words of Professor Murray J. Harris:
“Like the Father, and equally with him, the Logos may be included within the category of Deity as a partaker in the divine essence.” (Harris, p. 67)
In other words, the reason why there is no absolute identfication between the Word and the Father, only divine relationship, is they are both parts of a larger entity, God, where one is God the Father and the other is God the Son. This is how trinitarians interpret the third clause of John 1:1 (“the Word was God”). However, even those scholars who uphold the trinity doctrine admit that the absence of any reference to the so-called God the Holy Spirit in the verse, is a gaping hole in that argument. Says Professor Harris:
“…the articular θεὸς [theos] could not refer to the divine essence (‘the Word was with the divine nature’ is nonsensical) or to the trinitarian God (since ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν [en pros ton theon] is predicated of the Logos-Son and the Spirit is not mentioned or alluded to elsewhere in the Prologue).” (Harris, p. 55)
This interpretation of John 1:1 that it shows divine relation between the Father and the Word, that they are both parts of a larger entity, God, where one is God the Father and the other is God the Son,
is also very difficult to defend because John would never conforms with the idea that God the Father is only a part of a larger entity, God.
John wrote Jesus’ statement giving distinction between Jesus and the Father like what is written in John 14:28:
“You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, FOR THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I.” (John 14:28 NIV, emphasis mine)
John also wrote Jesus’ statement giving distinction between Jesus and God:
“I AM A MAN who has told you the truth which I HEARD FROM GOD, but you are trying to kill me. Abraham did nothing like that.” (John 8:40-41 NCV, emphasis mine)
“If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” (John 7:17 NIV)
But John never made a distinction between God and the Father, because he wrote Jesus’ statement that identified the Father as the one and only trie God:
“Jesus said these things. Then, raising his eyes in prayer, he said: Father, it's time…
“And this is the real and eternal life: THAT THEY KNOW YOU, THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (John 17:1 and 3 The Message, emphasis ours)
In fact, nowhere in the entire book of the Gospel According to John that John ever make a distinction between God and the Father let alone hint that there is “a larger entity” than God the Father. This statement wrote by Apostle Paul refutes the trinitarian belief that there is “a larger entity” than God the Father:
“One God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:6 RSV)
Therefore, the assertion that there is a larger entity than God the Father is without biblical basis. How can there be a larger entity than the Creator of all things Himself? Says Apostle Paul:
“Yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live.” (I Corinthians 8:6 TEV)
Thus, the weakness of interpreting the trinity in John 1:1c is this interpretation presuposes more than what the verse actually states. Nowhere in the verse, nor in the entire book for that matter, does John ever make a distinction between God and the Father let alone hint that there is “a larger entity” than God the Father. Basing such an interpretation of John 1:1 on such presuppositions would be an eisegetical argument, dependent ultimately on circular reasoning. Existence of the Trinity is first assumed in order to interpret the verse, and then the verse is used in order to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. For this reason alone, we can dismiss a trinitarian interpretation as unscriptural.
WHAT DOES JOHN MEAN WHEN HE SAID
THAT “THE WORD WAS GOD”?
Professor Bruce Vowter, a Catholic biblical scholar and a trinitarian, on his commentray on “The Gospel According to John” agrees with the “Simple copula of predication”:
“Here ‘God’ without the article is oredicative. The Word is divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished from another divine person.” (Vowler, p. 422)
This trinitarian holds that “’God’ without the article is predicative.” The word “theos” is mentioned in the last two clauses of John 1:1. But, please take note the differences:
“En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros TON THEON, kai THEOS en o logos.”
The second clause mentioned the word “theos” but with definite article “ton” (“the”), but take note that in the third clause, the word “theos” is mentioned without definite article “kai THEOS en o logos.” However, the word “logos” is mentioned in all the three clauses, and all mention of “logos” there is a definite article before it (“o logos”). Because of this, Vowler concluded “Here ‘God’ without the article is oredicative.” Remember what Erickson said about the “simple copula of predication”?
“…One is the ‘is’ of of predication or of attribution, where a particular quality is predicated of the subject by use of an adjective. The final use is the ‘is’ of identity, where the subject is equivalent with the predicate. This is, in the terminology of logic, a double A-type proposition where ‘All X is Y’ and ‘All Y is X.’ Such propositions are invertible: in other words, there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” (Erickson, p. 460)
To be classified as “simple copula of identification” or “simple copula of conclusion”, Erickson said, “there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” But, in the third clause of John 1:1, the absence of a definite article confirms that the term theos (God) function not as a noun, but as predicate, and the term o logos (the Word) is the subject. Because of this reason we can dismiss the use of the simple copula (verb “en”) of the third clause of John 1:1 as “is of identification” and “is of conclusion.” Thus, the Word is not God Himself, and not a part of a larger entity called “God.”
Those who interpret this (“kai theos en o logos” - “and the Word was God”) to mean that Jesus Christ is God accuse those who hold the opposite view of making so much of the omission of the definite article “o” (Greek for “the”) before theos (Greek for “God”). The implication of such criticism is that the omission of “o” before “theos” is not that important.
However, those critics easilly dismiss the importance of the article before “theos” would not only have to answer why the article is “omitted,” but also face those thoughtful and sincere trinitarian scholars who, although not completely certain why the article was “omitted,” cannot deny the importance of this “omission.” According to the admission of Professor Harris, a trinitarian, the absence of the article before the term theos:
“…show
Had there been an article with both nouns, the proposition would have been true in both directions (“the Word was God”; “God was the Word”). But John did not say that. With the absence of a definite article, “the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position.” Indeed, JOHN DENIES THAT “GOD WAS THE WORD.”
It is like the statement “Time is Gold.” But, surely it is not in convertible position, as “Time is Gold”; “Gold is Time.” Indeed, “Time is Gold” but “Gold is not Time.” THUS, WITH THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE ARTICLE, “THE WORD WAS GOD” BUT “GOD IS NOT THE WORD.”
Without the definite article, theos (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the logos (Word). As Vowler said, “Here ‘God’ without the article is oredicative. The Word is divine…” Thus, the reason why some Bible scholars and translators translated John 1:1 as:
John 1:1 Goodspeed
“…and the Word was divine.”
John 1:1 Moffatt
“…the Logos was divine.”
In the statement “the Word was God”, the term theos (God) is not used as the subject, but as predicate, an adjecive. John used the term theos (God) to described the characteristic of the logos (Word). So, why does the text say θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word was God)?
“For no word from God shall be void of power.” (Luke 1:37 ASV)
Like God eho is almighty or all-powerful (Gen. 35:11), no word of God is without power.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The verse really is, 'and the word was God'. Your idea isn't literal to the verse, as that is a description. Now, of course you can make an argument, however I disagree.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
BELIEVERS IN THE DEITY OF CHRIST WRESTED THE
VERSE AND TRIED TO TWIST IT TO FORCE OUT
THE MEANING THAT THEY WANTED IT TO YIELD
How do the believers in the deity of Christ explain the absence of a definite article before the term theos? The proponents of the belief that Christ is God wrested with the verse and tried to twist it around to force out the meaning that they wanted it to yield. Here is some example:
“Why, then, is θεὸς [theos] anarthrousin John 1:1c? Although it is inappropriate to speak of John’s omission of the article, one may justifiably speak of his purpose in writing θεὸς [theos]rather than, say, ὸ θεὸς [ho theos] or θεὶὸς [ho theios] or θεὸv [theon].. Having distinguished the Logos from the Father (τὸν θεόν [ton theon], 1:1b) John wished to point to their commonality, not merely in purpose but in being (θεὸς [theos]). Lke the Father, and equally with him, the Logos may be included within the category of deityas a partaker of divine essene. If, then, a singlereason is to be given for the anarthrous state of θεὸς [theos], it is that this noun is qualitative, emphasizing nature rather than personal identity. In an incidental manner, this anarthous θεὸς [theos] also confirms that the articular λόγος is the subject of the clause and excludes the inferencethat the Word exhausts the category of Deity or that the Son was the Father.” (Harris, p.67)
So far, we can see how complicated and involved are the interpretations given to John 1:1c by the proponents of the deity of Christ. They made their interpretations more complicated believing that they can lure the innocents to believe that their interpretations answer the difficulty given by John’s omission of the article ὸ before the term θεὶὸς. But, how much complicated their interpretations are, still these are only their own interpretations. The fact remains that the absence of the article ὸ before the term θεὸς shows that this is a predicate, and articular λόγος is the subject, thus, it shows that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position. John thereby denies that “God was the Word. Without the definite article, theos (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the logos (Word).
CONCLUSION
We must employ logical analysis and consult the truth written in the Bible, and not to resort to opinions or interpretations “to determined what prompted John’s fairly unusual syntax.”
The English translation “and the Word was God” comes from the Greek “kai theos en o logos.” Note that in the Greek text, the term “theos” (God) comes before the subject of the clause, “o logos” (the Word). Thus, the key to learn what John might mean is to determine how John used the simple copula (the verb “ἦν”) in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word WAS God) – to determine the copular relationship of “theos” (God) and “o logos” (the Word).
At least three possible meanings of the verb “ἦν” (“was”) in New Testament Greek in which John wrote to determine what John might mean by the third clause of John 1:1: (1) “is of identification”; (2) “is of conclusion”; and (3) “is of predication.”
If the use of the term “en” (was) in the clause “theos EN o logos” (“the Word WAS God”) is “simple copula of identification” – John would mean “the Word is God Himself”; If it’s “simple copula of conclusion” – John would mean “the Word is a part of a larger entity called ‘God’”; But if it’s “simple copula of predication” – the term theos (God) is a predicate, thus, John used the term theos (God) to described the characteristic of the logos (Word).
However, To be classified as “simple copula of identification” or “simple copula of conclusion,” there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position. But, in the third clause of John 1:1, the word “theos” is mentioned without definite article – “kai THEOS en o logos.” The absence of the definite article before the term “theos” proves:
(1) the term theos (God) function not as a noun, but as predicate, and the term o logos (Word) is the subject;
(2) because the term theos (God) function not as a noun, but as predicate, we can dismiss the use of the simple copula (verb “en”) of the third clause of John 1:1 as “is of identification” and “is of conclusion.” Thus, the Word is not God Himself, and not a part of a larger entity called “God”;
(3) it shows that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position, John thereby denies that “God was the Word.” Thus, with the absence of a definite article, “the Word was God,” but “God is not the Word.”
(4) Without the definite article, theos (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the logos (Word) – the “Word was divine” (John 1:1 Goodspeed).
THEREFORE, JESUS CHRIST IS NEVER CALLED GOD IN JOHN 1:1.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
For example, God is Life because he has life within himself. Jesus is life because God has given him also to have life within himself.
On John 1:1c “the Word was God” – What it truly means?
Is Jesus Christ called God
in John 1:1?
An in-depth discussion of the third clause of John 1:1
“The Word was God”
THE proponents of the Christ-is-God theology so confidently affirm that the verse John 1:1 (specially the third clause) expressly supports their belief that one is led to think that this verse explicitly calls Jesus Christ “God.” However, the first verse of The Gospel According to John states:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1).
The Greek text of John 1:1 states:
’ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.
In this and in other Greek versions of the Bible, we do not find the name “Jesus Christ” in the first verse of the Fourth Gospel. Also, none of the Bible’s English translation, strictly so called, could be shown to contain the name of Jesus Christ in that verse.
[Note: The Living Bible renders this verse: “Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.” But strictly speaking, the Living Bible is a paraphrase. However, its publishers were honest enough to explain in the footnote that the name “Christ” which they insinuated into the verse, is “literally” the equivalent of the term “the Word.” (The Living Bible, special edition, Great Britain: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971)]
Thus, the Greek text, the Greek versions of the Bible, and the English translations of the Bible, strictly so called, do not contain the name of Jesus Christ in the first verse of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel According to John.
However, the proponents of the belief in the deity of Christ still so confidently believe that this verse (specially the third clause which says “the Word was God”) expressly supports their belief. Hence, let us examine the interpretations and text itself of the third clause of John 1:1 to determine whether or not they are justified in asserting that Jesus Christ is called God in this verse.
WE MUST EMPLOY LOGICAL ANALYSIS “TO DETERMINED
WHAT PROMPTED JOHN’S FAIRLY UNUSUAL SYNTAX”
The English translation “and the Word was God” comes from the Greek “kai theos en o logos.” Professor Millard J. Erickson, author of many boks in Christian theology, says that we must employ logical analysis “to determined what prompted John’s fairly unusual syntax” (Erickson, p. 460).
Note that in the Greek text, the term “theos” (God) comes before the subject of the clause, “o logos” (the Word): καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos en o logos/and the Word was God). The key to learn what John might mean is to determine how John used the simple copula (the verb “ἦν”) in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word WAS God) – to determine the copular relationship of “theos” (God) and “o logos” (the Word).
Erickson cites at least three possible meanings of the verb “ἦν” (“was”) in New Testament Greek in which John wrote to determine what John might mean by the third clause of John 1:1:
“In an Indo-European language like New Testament Greek, there are at least three usages of the simple copula. One is the ‘is’ of conclusion, where the subject is said to be a member of a class. One is the ‘is’ of of predication or of attribution, where a particular quality is predicated of the subject by use of an adjective. The final use is the ‘is’ of identity, where the subject is equivalent with the predicate. This is, in the terminology of logic, a double A-type proposition where ‘All X is Y’ and ‘All Y is X.’ Such propositions are invertible: in other words, there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” (Erickson, p. 460)
WHY JOHN WOULD NEVER MEANT IN HIS WRITING
THAT “THE WORD IS GOD HIMSELF” WHEN HE SAID
“THE WORD WAS GOD”
Interestingly, “‘is’ of conclusion” and “‘is’ of identity” are how the proponents of Christ-is-God theoogy interpret the clause “the Word was God” to prove their belief that Jesus Christ is God. For instance, Bruce A. Demarest, in his book says that in this verse:
“John stresses the Logos’ eternal identity with God: ‘and the Word was God’. John wants us to know that the Word was not merely God’s eternal companion; He was in truth God Himself.” (Demarest, p. 25)
Demarest interprets the clause on the basis of his understanding that the copular relationship between the “logos” (Word) and “theos” (God) is that of identification. He interpret the verb “en” (was) as “’is’ of identification.” This is also how many people interpret the clause “the Word was God” which led them to believe that this clause proves that Jesus Christ is “God Himself.”
However, the interpretation that identifies the Word with God is indeed very difficult to defend, because the preceding clause states that ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“the Word was with God”). If it is true that the Word is God Himself (as their interpretation of the clause “the Word was God”), then there must be two Gods, because John 1:1 also said that “the Word was with God” – one “God” (the Word) who is with another God (the God who the Word was with). This is unacceptable with monotheistic people to whom John was writing. John would never contradict what he wrote in John 17:3:
“And this is the real and eternal life: THAT THEY KNOW YOU, THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (John 17:3 The Message, emphasis ours)
Thus, John would never meant in his writing that “the Word is God Himself” when he said “the Word was God” because he will not contradict himself by saying in one part of his writing that “the Word is God Himself” and writing in another that “the Word was with God.” Also, John would never contradict what he wrote that the Father of Jesus Christ is the one and only true God.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
All that the Father has He gives to the son. So, how does God give all he has to the son? He does so by giving His spirit in full measure to His son. Full measure means without limit of time. Therefore, anything that can be said of the spirit can be applied to Jesus. For example, in the beginning God created by His spirit word and Jesus is given that spirit word and can therefore be attributed to the creation of God by that word insomuch that he is called "the Word of God".The verse really is, 'and the word was God'. Your idea isn't literal to the verse, as that is a description. Now, of course you can make an argument, however I disagree.
LightofTruth
Well-Known Member
Essentially, Jesus is God in that he represents all that God is. We ought therefore honor the son as we do the Father.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Agree, it's part and parcel of the same belief, that is why, I believe that Jesus sits on the throne, a strange verse as Yehovah is already there, yet the verse isn't metaphor in the sense of 'being like deity', because that isn't how one talks about God. We use literalisms in instances like that.
That can however just mean,
Jehovah=God
Jesus=God
Last edited:
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
My friend.
You are refering to tertullian in using the word "Trinitas" for the first time.
I agree, the WORD TRINITY NEVER EXISTED IN THE BIBLE, NOR IN THE CHURCH UNTILL TERTULLIAN.
That does not need to say that the Christians did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and the holy Ghost!
As a matter of fact, all the church fathers from 120AD up to Esebius in 325 believed in the father, the Goly ghost, and jesus being divine and one God.
The matter that they did not have the word "Trinity" so to "Coined" yet, does not reduce the fact that Christians understood Jesus to be the Word of the Father, and being God himself.
I can post pages of Church fathers' writings to show you just that.
Now concerning your quotation from 1 Cor 8: 5 to 7 does not tell me that only the Father is God, it tells me about the different persons of YHWH, who is the Father from where all things came, and Jesus from where all things came!
Look how your whole argumeent falls into itself when you Highlited only 10 words, and hid the other 10 words that are repeated TWICE!
LOOK! IT SAYS tHER4E IS ONE GOD, THE FATHER, AND ONE LORD JESUS...
THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS CAME AND FOR WHOM WE LIVE (x)
so what now?
here we see that Jesus and the Father both created everything?
Or do you say that Jesus is a creator but not God?
Last edited:
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Well, remember you said we will work through isaiah 48?
Or is your answer, No trinity there!
Then you will have too tell me?
How is it possible that the Creator of heaven and earth, was sent by YHWH and His Spirit?
Your answer telling me,
No trinity there is actually a display if how bias you are, and will not even commit to an agreement we had.
Untill you answer the following question, I will have to ignore any other statements.
I was very lenient to facilitate you, and we had an agreement to investigate Isaiah 48, but now you run in circles.
Do you realise that you are actually admitting that you will never accept anything else but what your church claims?
Do you know that what |I have learned from discussing everything with you on the Trinity, you actually sharpened my points of debate for future conversations.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
In the post you quoted from me does not speak of John 1:1 at all!
How did you miss out on that.
We are talking of Isaiah 48
Please go back and clear your confusion.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The question remains
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
The word of God is the name and seal of LOVE.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
I do not see any error in John 1 in the NIV.
But look how the Jehovah witnesses translated it to change the meaning that Jesus is not God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
Then, when one look at how the NIV translated Isaiah 48:16
Isaiah 48:16 - New International Version
"Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, endowed with his Spirit.
Not God anymore.
At least the jehovah witnesses knew they will be called out if they did it.
Isaiah 48:16 new World Translation
'Come near to me, YOU people. Hear this. From the start I have spoken in no place of concealment at all. From the time of its occurring I have been there.' And now the Sovereign Lord Jehovah himself has sent me, even his spirit.
All these subtile changes not supported by any manuscript, combines into a movement of unitarianism.
I stay with the KJV, for one reason.
it has the least translation errors and there is in this regard no WILLFULL subtile changes towards the destruction of the Trinity.
I can give you one translation error from the Greek to the English.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
here the translators translated the wrong tense.
It is the Aurist, or mere past tense.
it should read:
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believed; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
meaning:
The apostles and disciples who believed Jesus rose from the dead, will receive these gifts.
I remember how zakir Naik challenged Dr Campbell to translate forom some Indian paper money (telling he would not force Dr Campbell to drink poison to prove he was a Christian)
What the Atheist and Muslim does is to take these verses as the "Acid test" where Christians can prove they believe in Christ, and they will not die because they believe.
Jesus sent his disciples and Apostles out on 2 occasions, each time giving them gifts.
Luke 9: 1-2 and Matt 10: 1.
Therefore, not every Christian received these gifts and this is not some Christian Test!
But a mere small translation error which is so insignificant, it can be ignored.
I see the Afrikaans 1933 did translate in the past tense, and it is the same as the KJV
firedragon
Veteran Member
Logos means word. As in Matthew 28:15. Simple meaning 'word'. Actually, all the synoptic gospels would be the same. All over the place.
The writer of John as you have demonstrated has adopted the Philo's Logos which as you said is completely different.
But logos does mean just word. At least in the Koine Greek.
Augustus
…
Can't say I agree that the Christian use of logos simply meant word. It would be very strange if it did given how it is used in numerous other belief systems of the age. Early theologians didn't interpret it as just 'word' either.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Matthew 5:37
esto de ho "logos" humon nay nay
All you need to say is ‘Yes,’
Ho Logos Humwn = The word of you = You say
Any theologian, student or scholar, who knows koine greek knows that logos simply means word. your word, his word, you say, I say, he says. It's logos. The plural is logous and always translated as 'words'. Plural of words.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Philo actually connected it Word, Logos to Sophia, or Wisdom in reference to proverbs.
Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
Pro 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Pro 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Pro 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Pro 8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Pro 8:32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Pro 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Pro 8:34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
Pro 8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
Pro 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
The above is very clear that Wisdom is the Word or Mind of the Father.
all these thoughts was difficuilt to explain, and a lot of philosophy ascended from this thinking.
Thats why Philo asked the question.
Who is the Son of God?
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
In the firt century already we have Jews asking these questions, making statements about the attributes of YHWH being God, the Logos, and the Spirit.
They saw the Elohim in Plural, being a singular YHWH, and they understood YHWH as such.
it was easy for the Jews of the first century to accept the fact that there is a father, Son and Spirit, for they got it from the Old Testament.
Only critisizers who do not want to declare the divinity of Jesus, would make accusations that the Trinity was "Thought up" in 325 AD.
But they are wrong, even one critisizer on this thread made a statement that Tertullian used the word "Trinitas" in (b155 to d 220).
if that is so, it does not mean Tertullian came up with the concept of the Trinity, but that he found a WORD to describe the Triune Nature of the God of the Bible.
Anyone that say the Trinity is not to be found in the Old Testament is wrong, and does their best to ignore what is written.
Look at MJFlores on how he remains in total denial about Isaiah 48: 16.
he challenged me to work through the passage step by step, only to now come up with an argument, "No Trinity there!"
This is what every atheist and hater of God say!
No trinity there!
But thats not what I see.
I see salvation could only be achieved by a Triune God who had a Mind of wisdom called the Word, and a Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart.
if there is no Word who died in our place, who because of being God rose from the dead, and no Holy Spirit to dwell in us, we will be lost!
Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
Pro 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Pro 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Pro 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Pro 8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Pro 8:32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Pro 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Pro 8:34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
Pro 8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
Pro 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
The above is very clear that Wisdom is the Word or Mind of the Father.
all these thoughts was difficuilt to explain, and a lot of philosophy ascended from this thinking.
Thats why Philo asked the question.
Who is the Son of God?
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
In the firt century already we have Jews asking these questions, making statements about the attributes of YHWH being God, the Logos, and the Spirit.
They saw the Elohim in Plural, being a singular YHWH, and they understood YHWH as such.
it was easy for the Jews of the first century to accept the fact that there is a father, Son and Spirit, for they got it from the Old Testament.
Only critisizers who do not want to declare the divinity of Jesus, would make accusations that the Trinity was "Thought up" in 325 AD.
But they are wrong, even one critisizer on this thread made a statement that Tertullian used the word "Trinitas" in (b155 to d 220).
if that is so, it does not mean Tertullian came up with the concept of the Trinity, but that he found a WORD to describe the Triune Nature of the God of the Bible.
Anyone that say the Trinity is not to be found in the Old Testament is wrong, and does their best to ignore what is written.
Look at MJFlores on how he remains in total denial about Isaiah 48: 16.
he challenged me to work through the passage step by step, only to now come up with an argument, "No Trinity there!"
This is what every atheist and hater of God say!
No trinity there!
But thats not what I see.
I see salvation could only be achieved by a Triune God who had a Mind of wisdom called the Word, and a Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart.
if there is no Word who died in our place, who because of being God rose from the dead, and no Holy Spirit to dwell in us, we will be lost!